Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

The point that I would like to make is that whilst it's fair to say that atemi striking is effective with strong physical power, that is not true in all cases. Atemi points are the weakest points in the body and injuring them does not in all cases need a great deal of force. In Atemi Jujitsu we are trained to strike at the side of the kneecap with a Muay Thai styled kick which needs very little force to take someone's kneecap off. Ribs are often easily broken with the correct style of punch where the knuckles pass between the ribs and enter the rib cage. Throat striking is another effective use of Atemi.

Absolutely agree. IIRC, I was responding to the OP's observation that atemi from smaller people is likely to be ineffective due to lack of power, and therefore the solution is to become more powerful. My point being that there are physical limitations to the amount of power a smaller person can develop, so maybe focusing on power (rather than, for instance, precise targeting) is a red herring.

The point being, teaching the body to hit is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Good Aikido training should teach you how to move into relationships with your partner where you could deliver an effective atemi if you needed to.

Just to toss in a gambit here but I don't think that is true about Takeda's students generally or at least it was more true of many of Ueshiba's. I've always been amazed at how mundane some of the backgrounds were.

Quote:

Mert Gambito wrote:

Arno,

I'll propose the following to you, as my final, final corollary here.

Granted, the aiki greats who learned from Sokaku Takeda were typically versed in multiple budo and/or bujutsu: they were in general well-rounded martial artists. Yet, once they attained high-level efficacy with Daito-ryu IP/aiki, that was all she wrote. Those body skills within their respective flavors of the art had everything inherently needed for goshin-jutsu, and techniques were spontaneously "born", to cite Ueshiba, as necessary to readily dispatch any challenger/uke, regardless of that other person's skill set. Yeah, it sounds like hyperbole, but once you've met people who are living proof that it's not -- well, the choice is yours.

Yet, you suggested this might be too much time and effort earlier. Heck, isn't it a lot easier to train in one thing (the way of aiki), than too many arts simultaneously?

Just to toss in a gambit here but I don't think that is true about Takeda's students generally or at least it was more true of many of Ueshiba's. I've always been amazed at how mundane some of the backgrounds were.

Peter,

Absolutely, not at all. As with training modalities in any human endeavor, people's results fall along a bell curve, and it is the effort and tenacity, or lack thereof, that is the main factor in shaping it.

was going to stay out of this conversation, since if you mention that aikido folks can't atemi out of a paper bag would cause them to go rabid, which they are.

the martial arts folks, some non-martial arts too, that i encountered look at atemi as some thing to do to the other buggers. however, the thought that if you are in range to atemi the other buggers, you are also in range of the other buggers to atemi you. often this came as a shock. i kinda like the systema folks approach. they just accept that you are going to get hit and hit alot, so learn to deal with it. so they tend to hit each other a lot, often out of the blue. i got hit by many arts before, but the lightest and the most painful came from systema folks. their atemi design to cause major discomfort and disrupt your structure at the same time. two for one approach which i find working well with aikido. then add some internal stuffs on top, whoo hoo you have a good time. but you can't hang around with those systema buggers too long; otherwise, you ended up wearing camo underwear and start to speak with a russian accent. you can't trust them russian other than their fermented potato.

I think it is pertinent to note that the mechanics of deliving power in these strikes - just speaking at an external, muscles-and-skeleton level here - are different than the mechanics of deliving a punch the way one is taught in a puglisitic style.

1st, Rory Miller's book is a good read, and it is equally applicable to pretty much any martial arts program/school dojo. However, that level of "thought on violence" is not equally applicable across the population. Certain types of people want to train in a way that creates an ability to deal with that level of conflict, some just do not want to pay the training price for it, and that is their choice. Mine, too, as I get older, having been there and done that and now taking a more tactical thought approach - attempt to solve the problem by developing skills in advance to deal with it, rather than just training like a world-class MMA fighter all the time. Did that for a bit, and my bod was literally wearing out, felt like.

I am chuckling a bit at Krystal's comment.... not going to do it to herself again... Ha! Look at it this way. Arno is a novitiate, and if we've been there and done that and asked the same basic question ... perhaps expressed differently but basically the same "sort" of question back when we really didn't know what was up, we can save him some time and frustration by pointing out the "flaw" in his perception, which really isn't. It's more of a shift in perception that may be needed, or maybe a simpler shift in training location.

I'd imagine that if he (you, Arno) ais (are) wanting to get some striking (real striking) then go to a striking art/school for a bit and mess around with it for a couple months or a couple decades. If, however, that's not it, and you want to just get atemi (the aikido sort, which can be, but definitely does not Have to be a full-tilt boogie karate punch, shoto, etc.) then perhaps you need to shift aikido schools, or even styles. Perhaps see if you can find a Yoshinkan school near to where you are, as their "flavor" to me (outsider) seems more ... abrupt and sharp, than your typical aikikai school's approach.

Regardless, just keep looking for what you want, and don't feel bad about not finding it where you are. It happens. But... it's not the school's "fault" that they don't have what You want.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

...In a recent training in the dojo, with knife attacks, the nage could simply not perform the technique, because I didn't want to give my balance away. And you know what the nage said? I was not "committed" enough.. Apparently, the cooperative confines of Aikido need an uke who has no sense of their body, balance and improvisation abilities. and this is called "committed". In my dictionary, committed means a person who does all they can in their abilities to perform something. And giving my balance away, or leaving my hand/arm hanging forever (instead of pulling back) for nage to grab is not commitment. It is illusion. I know this will come back to the necessity of Kata discussion, but the problem is that even in Randori, neither real commitment nor real atemi is used.

Pulling this post out of the middle of the thread because I feel like talking about it, your problem here is that you are a jerk. Not intentionally, perhaps, but you created a situation where neither you nor your training partner learned anything. Bully for you. Taking your description at face value, you went in with enough of a center that nage couldn't unbalance you, and that's how you left it. Nage entered without the chops to unbalance you and that's how he/she left it. And a good time was not had by all.

So, yeah, kata means you have to work with the situation and the abilities of your training partner. If they can't unbalance you, give up enough so they can unbalance you by doing the right thing (whatever you were training). As they get better, give up less. Same with leaving your arm hanging out there--leave it out long enough for them to work through whatever they need to. As they get better, you should move more and more to real time. This is something you and your training partner can and should negotiate in the moment: "Slow that down, and don't go so easy on me. I'm not really getting the kuzushi." "Speed that up. Let's see if I can handle it if you rechamber the strike the way a boxer would."

It is true that some people and some dojos don't push themselves. They are happy with slow recovery and foolish strikes that throw the attacker off balance. It's also true that some Aikido sucks. (Sturgeon's Law applies.) If nage is depending on you to throw yourself off balance, and your dojo doesn't teach any way to create kuzushi... go somewhere else.

Hugh, you said a mouthful. I had been tempted to weigh in on that comment but went the why bother route. I find it so hard to believe that beginners are not constantly reminded that uke trains nage and that being dick serves no one (and annoys the pig).

It spoke volumes to me the one time I have stepped on the mat at you dojo, with what seemed at the time 25 yudansha and 1 kyu, that nobody was dick. No one dived, several people, helpfully and courteously pointed out openings in technique that improved the situation, and everybody adjusted their ukemi to nage’s level of capability. That is how it should be done.

Senseis who don’t calibrate their students are shirking their responsibilities and reduce the effectiveness of everyone’s time on the mat. All of us walk in the door with ego, it is sensei’s job to redirect that ego in useful directions. You can’t get good without ego, but a determined sense of purpose is very different from “just see if you can move me…tee hee” (unless resistance is the specific exercise).

So, yeah, kata means you have to work with the situation and the abilities of your training partner. If they can't unbalance you, give up enough so they can unbalance you by doing the right thing (whatever you were training). As they get better, give up less. Same with leaving your arm hanging out there--leave it out long enough for them to work through whatever they need to. As they get better, you should move more and more to real time. This is something you and your training partner can and should negotiate in the moment: "Slow that down, and don't go so easy on me. I'm not really getting the kuzushi." "Speed that up. Let's see if I can handle it if you rechamber the strike the way a boxer would."

Excellent rendering of what Maruyama sensei referred to as logical resistance. Thanks.

In the OP's defense, I think he was talking about a situation where an ostensibly senior student was unable to throw him. And apparently it was not clearly explained why he needed to adjust his ukemi to the situation.

Without having been there, I don't want to speculate on what actually happened. But the case of a relative beginner in aikido with extensive experience in other arts can be tricky for instructors and senior students alike.

"Basic technique" *doesn't* actually work that well, and isn't really intended to be a practical self-defense tool. Its role is to teach the shape of aikido, the movement patterns, the body sensitivity. In a real situation, things are likely to be a lot smaller and more direct. Uncorking "real technique" on an aikido beginner with limited ukemi skills is kind of rude, though. Moreover, different dojos have different attitudes toward "improvisation." Some expect students to do exactly what the instructor demonstrated, but that might not actually be the appropriate response to the particular attack delivered by uke.

And all of this can be especially confusing to someone from another art, who not unreasonably expects senior students to have some degree of ability to handle challenging attacks.

So yes, I agree that the OP's attack was probably not appropriate to the situation, but I think the dojo bears some of the responsibility if the results reflected poorly on the art as a whole.

I can remember the time when "commitment" was the term used to describe the ridiculous nature in which uke "attacked." It probably more accurately reflected the form of hospitalization for that person than anything to do with me. The term was and is poorly conveyed in most dojos and probably no two posts here would strike the same chord, either. Throw that on the pyre with relax and resist...

Generally, I believe yudansha have an obligation to direct mudansha in the minor issues of training, sometimes that is the [subtle] demonstration that what the mudansha is doing is not conducive to the desired result. I would argue two points to this responsibility:
1. There exists in greater number occasions when yudansha do not know what they are doing and their direction is in-congruent to the instruction.
2. There exists in greater number occasions when mudansha have a technical knowledge that exceeds the yudansha with whom they are training.

Sometimes, the proper response is to drop your partner on her butt, then explain that while her obstinate attitude is not a problem in application, it is making the current exercise more difficult. I can empathize with the OP because I think he is hoping/expecting seniors to have this ability. Is it an ego thing? Maybe. But, don't we constantly spout on about "feeling the attack" and "going with the flow?" Baseball games are won with pitching, but guess what makes the highlight reels? Home runs. I am not sure we aren't conflating two issues here, the first being a general frustration that aikido is not withstanding the scrutiny of OP (under his terms), the second being whether the OP can find alternative instruction that draws aikido back into line with his expectations of performance while correcting some of his mis-expectations.

I can appreciate a simple suspicion based on the absence of proof. We've had that conversation before - stealing the ethos established by O Sensei does not a shihan make.

If I had a nickel for every time someone came into the dojo and her expectation of what is aikido aligned with what is our expectation of aikido... I might have a nickel.

Sometimes, the proper response is to drop your partner on her butt, then explain that while her obstinate attitude is not a problem in application, it is making the current exercise more difficult. I can empathize with the OP because I think he is hoping/expecting seniors to have this ability.

To do it without hurting him? I dunno. This is something that I don't have. Uke attacks and then does exactly the worst thing possible, makes him/herself vulnerable, and doesn't even know it -- no, I don't have the ability to make the technique effective (the technique that we're supposed to be doing, not something else) and not hurt my partner. Maybe some day.

To do it without hurting him? I dunno. This is something that I don't have. Uke attacks and then does exactly the worst thing possible, makes him/herself vulnerable, and doesn't even know it -- no, I don't have the ability to make the technique effective (the technique that we're supposed to be doing, not something else) and not hurt my partner. Maybe some day.

Yeah. Given a choice between personally looking bad and injuring my partner, I'm willing to look bad every single time. And if that leaves my partner thinking "aikido doesn't work," well, I guess I'll just have to take that risk.

Yeah. Given a choice between personally looking bad and injuring my partner, I'm willing to look bad every single time. And if that leaves my partner thinking "aikido doesn't work," well, I guess I'll just have to take that risk.

Katherine

First, I contend the logic that anything I said indicates the action leads to injury. Second, I content the logic the my partner would be embarrassed by a demonstration of waza. Third, I think we need to qualify your claim and take ownership of it, "My aikido doesn't work." The rules of leadership still apply - If you are advocating that you would intend to injure your partner, or embarrass them, then that is not the role of yudansha that I envision. I do not think that either you or Mary envision that leadership role, but I don't think the constraints you place on the possible reactions from a mudansha who experiences oyo waza are complete.

I think there is nothing wrong with saying, "Man, I am not that good. You either need to find someone better with whom to contend, or back it down so we can succeed." But then that puts us back at one of my caveats - yudansha are having difficulty with mudansha.

I think the entire logic stream here is off. If my partner is poorly attacking, it should be easier to express aiki. Unless I cannot express aiki and I am trying to "jujutsu" my partner... Ultimately, I think this is where this conversation is going. That we are frustrated with those who can resist our jujutsu - this is a different conversation and one to which I was implying in my baseball analogy. It is the aiki that makes our stuff work, but the outside world wants to see the jujutsu through which we express aiki.

From my personal perspective, the last couple of years have knocked me down a couple of pegs. I have had the pleasure of working out with some great individuals that opened my eyes to how much there is that I do not know about aiki and how much there is that I did not see in aikido. I have become more comfortable with "I'm not that good."

First, I contend the logic that anything I said indicates the action leads to injury.

You didn't say it. I said it. Reread above.

Quote:

Jon Reading wrote:

Second, I content the logic the my partner would be embarrassed by a demonstration of waza.

Katherine didn't say that. YOU said it. Just now.

Quote:

Jon Reading wrote:

Third, I think we need to qualify your claim and take ownership of it, "My aikido doesn't work."

I think she did just that.

Your post is timestamped 10:33 am today, but either you are posting from a very different timezone, you got very little sleep last night, or you seriously woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I don't think you understand at all what either of us said.

I think the entire logic stream here is off. If my partner is poorly attacking, it should be easier to express aiki. Unless I cannot express aiki and I am trying to "jujutsu" my partner... Ultimately, I think this is where this conversation is going. That we are frustrated with those who can resist our jujutsu - this is a different conversation and one to which I was implying in my baseball analogy. It is the aiki that makes our stuff work, but the outside world wants to see the jujutsu through which we express aiki.

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "poorly attacking." Certainly it is extremely easy to deal with a typical beginner attack. It is much more difficult to deal with an attack from an experienced martial artist from another style. In fact, it might well be impossible to execute a specific version of a specific technique that the person has seen coming and can anticipate. (ie, to be successful in a typical class situation)

Which is exactly why those individuals represent a challenging teaching situation, see my post up above. Even if I'm comfortable with the idea that "I'm not that good," saying so doesn't exactly inspire confidence in a new student unless I can clearly articulate how basic technique and kata practice fit into the development of "real," effective aikido.

Your post is timestamped 10:33 am today, but either you are posting from a very different timezone, you got very little sleep last night, or you seriously woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I don't think you understand at all what either of us said.

I am confused.

You posted the following claim:

Quote:

... no, I don't have the ability to make the technique effective (the technique that we're supposed to be doing, not something else) and not hurt my partner.

I am contending the general logic that implies aikido people cannot demonstrate aiki without risking injury to our partners. Rather, I advocate that it is possible to demonstrate aiki without injuring our partners, either within the context of the exercise or not.

Katherine posted the following comment:

Quote:

Given a choice between personally looking bad and injuring my partner, I'm willing to look bad every single time.

I am contending the general logic that implies that [unsuccessful] application of waza is somehow a reflection that is embarrassing. I advocate that most people understand that failure is simply part of a larger process.

I am not contesting your personal experiences, but I am challenging the leaps in argumentation and their implications. These are the questions that float through my head when I read the latest posts...

Through your post, is one to infer, that while you could not demonstrate aiki without injuring your partner... you could demonstrate aiki? Is injury just collateral? Are you making a contingent claim that if injuring your partner is OK, then you could demonstrate aiki?

Through Katherine's posts, is one to infer that training aiki results in either success that causes injury, or failure which causes embarrassment? Why would I be embarrassed if I have difficulty working with someone?

I don't think any of these inferences are true. My post was to challenge the limited options implied in these posts. Most of the world is not going to have experience as an aikido uke. If we are to impress others, it is going to start by expressing aiki as a demonstration for people who have never trained in aikido. Maybe the don't grab right, maybe they don't fall right. But, you gotta start somewhere and if our somewhere is either going to hurt our spectators or not work, we have a problem.

Aikido is a big tent. To my last comment, I think we need to keep our eyes on our own papers. Spend less time showing "aikido" and more time showing our personal aikido. Maybe it stacks up, maybe it doesn't.

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "poorly attacking." Certainly it is extremely easy to deal with a typical beginner attack. It is much more difficult to deal with an attack from an experienced martial artist from another style. In fact, it might well be impossible to execute a specific version of a specific technique that the person has seen coming and can anticipate. (ie, to be successful in a typical class situation)

Which is exactly why those individuals represent a challenging teaching situation, see my post up above. Even if I'm comfortable with the idea that "I'm not that good," saying so doesn't exactly inspire confidence in a new student unless I can clearly articulate how basic technique and kata practice fit into the development of "real," effective aikido.

Katherine

I deal with a range of visitors so I will go with poorly attacking as legitimately poor body management choices, not stylistic differences. For the record, I still include myself as making the occasional poor body management decision. Its just when I make a poor choice, sensei dumps my on my head and says, "what would you do that?" And yes, as the technical skill is higher in our partners, the more difficult that interaction becomes. You're felt the heavy ham that is George sensei's fist - he doesn't need anything else and that is sufficiently challenging to do anything.

Most of the better martial artists that come my way are exceedingly polite and genuine. They are skilled and BS'ing them just gets a grin and a smile. Most of them also know that you don't get things 100% of the time. Our Hagannah guy is leaving to work for MIT in the fall (George met him last year at our seminar). He was a real treat and someone with whom I would never cross hands. Ever. But, man he was fun and insightful and a great person. The thought of BS'ing him with the "I can't show you aikido because I would have to kill you," stuff would have been embarrassing. Nor was he upset when our aikido had little effect on him. "It's all BS, it's just the system that gives you the advantage," he would say.

I get my feathers ruffled because I don't believe that we need to explain what we do. If we do it right, those with sense know. I fwe need to explain what we're doing, we can improve the way we do things.

I am contending the general logic that implies that [unsuccessful] application of waza is somehow a reflection that is embarrassing. I advocate that most people understand that failure is simply part of a larger process.

I am not contesting your personal experiences, but I am challenging the leaps in argumentation and their implications. These are the questions that float through my head when I read the latest posts...

Through your post, is one to infer, that while you could not demonstrate aiki without injuring your partner... you could demonstrate aiki? Is injury just collateral? Are you making a contingent claim that if injuring your partner is OK, then you could demonstrate aiki?

Through Katherine's posts, is one to infer that training aiki results in either success that causes injury, or failure which causes embarrassment? Why would I be embarrassed if I have difficulty working with someone?

The whole thread started with the experiences of a person who was unimpressed with aikido because the person he was working with failed to handle his attack successfully. So yes, that particular individual did "look bad," the OP did NOT understand this as part of the learning process, and the effect was that aikido as a whole was viewed negatively. Which I think we can all agree was not a desirable outcome. Whether the OP's response was reasonable is another issue, and is what this particular subthread is about.

As for my own comments, I think you are the one who is missing the logical thread.

IF I have to choose between looking bad and injuring my partner, THEN I will choose to look bad.

I did not say that those are the only choices, and in fact in most cases yes of course there are other options. Rather I was discussing a hypothetical (IF!) case where, say, my partner was doing something that put him in danger.

IF the path of a throw puts my partner in the path of the person next to me, THEN I may need to abort the throw. IF this causes my partner to think my technique is ineffective, THEN I am okay with that. IF my partner's lack of ukemi skills puts his shoulder at risk, THEN I may have to use a less effective takedown. IF this creates an opening for my partner to reverse my technique, THEN I am okay with that. Do you see how this works?

I
I am contending the general logic that implies aikido people cannot demonstrate aiki without risking injury to our partners. Rather, I advocate that it is possible to demonstrate aiki without injuring our partners, either within the context of the exercise or not.

Oh, I see, so your comment was simply a non sequitur and has nothing to do with my comment. Got it. Carry on!

By the way, whose "general logic" IS that? The "general logic" of the mouse in your pocket? Because I sure didn't say it.

Quote:

Jon Reading wrote:

I am not contesting your personal experiences, but I am challenging the leaps in argumentation and their implications.

Honestly, I really don't see where anyone is doing any leaping but you. But, if I follow where I think you're trying to go, then we might agree...and we might not. It depends on what you mean by "demonstrating aiki". Demonstrating to whom? To a n00b who just walked through the door? That n00b is the blind man touching the elephant, only if he's coming from another style, he may unfortunately be burdened with style-specific blinders. You can "demonstrate" all you want, but it's like the philosophical question about the tree falling in the forest: if style-specific blinders prevent this n00b from seeing your demonstration, how is that effective?